It's the little things they get wrong...

From the Washington Post: "Thousands of e-mails that have been released by the State Department as part of a public records lawsuit show Clinton herself writing at least six e-mails containing information that has since been deemed classified."

No, that information was always classified, she just violated the law by failing to mark (and treat) it as such. Classified information is classified because of what it is, not how it is marked. And I expect much of her defense will revolve around "well I didn't KNOW it was classified since it wasn't marked" (which is a pathetic excuse and immaterial to the crime itself anyway).They have not been deemed classified now, they have merely been exposed as containing classified information. They were classified when she wrote them.

"In response to questions . . . Mr. Pagliano’s legal counsel told the committee yesterday that he would plead the Fifth to any and all questions if he were compelled to testify,"

To me, the solution seems simple. Offer him total immunity to any charges relating to the actions he took in that timeframe (but NOT to lying to Congress). He then cannot plead the Fifth as he cannot incriminate himself with his testimony. We shouldn't really care about prosecuting this guy, we should care about nailing his lawbreaking boss to the wall.

[H]er defense will revolve around "well I didn't KNOW it was classified since it wasn't marked" (which is a pathetic excuse and immaterial to the crime itself anyway).

If it does, she'll be lying (and depending on where she makes that claim, committing perjury). She's already said publicly that she's well versed in classification requirements.

I agree with Mike's proposal with this adjustment: first put to him all of the questions as planned, and let him plead the 5th to those he wishes. A Congressional hearing is not a criminal trial, and they--and we--can draw whatever conclusions from such pleadings we deem appropriate. The particular questions to which he pleads, and those pleas, will be highly instructive.

Then grant him immunity, and put the same questions to him, and such others as may have occurred from the prior question/plea combinations.

Related questions for the lawyers in the Hall: would a Congressional grant of immunity constitute, also, a grant of immunity in a Federal criminal trial? In a State criminal trial? In a DC criminal trial (here, I surmise it would, since the Congress runs the District)?